Situational / hypothetical question - how would you handle?

[Strykervet]

This guy just walked into a pharmacy in NY recently and killed everybody in the store, 4 dead, just to get the painkillers. If someone comes in a store flashing their piece, you really don't know what to expect... I understand these folks just thought it was a robbery until he sanitized the witnesses. Sick.

If he comes in waving it, I'm taking cover first and foremost, that is what to do anytime you find yourself in a possible or actual two way range in real life. That or get out if you can and arrange for help... Perhaps announce such loudly.

Now, depending on where you live will dicatate what you can and can't legally do next. In Illinois, to be lawfully compliant, just surrender I guess. In Washington, CCW permit holders can stop a felony in progress, that is what the law says. Brandishing isn't a felony, but armed robbery is. Personally, I carry for myself and mine like the other fellow said. If the weapon is pointed at me, I fear for my life and dude is going down.

Been at gunpoint before and the feeling isn't too good. Best advice is follow your gut, it won't let you down.

 

[Flfiremedic]

Lee's opinion was absolutely spot on, I wholeheartedly agree...just wish I could have written it as well.
In regards to a few earlier points:

The whole premise here would require that you present a weapon, probably from concealment and fire a or several WELL AIMED shots and completely neutralize the threat before the target (with an already drawn weapon) can move and fire or at least fire. That's gonna call for a very fast very accurate shot. Just this week a suspect discussed on here took 3 torso hits from a 45 acp and survived. In the current scenerio, you are going to have to make an immediate STOP before any shots from the target/suspect are made with the weapon. Remember; any of his shots made and angled between say 100 degrees and 20 or 30 degrees may strike a bystander...IMHO that calls for a sniper shot and one made with a weapon capable of immediate stops.

Multiple suspects? What on earth would lead you to believe that robberies are always or even usually are single suspect crimes? You may only have one yelling and waving a gun or only one getting arrested but that doesn't mean there was only one involved in a crime. Criminals are dishonest, addicts are addicted, none of that means they are necessarily stupid. If street level cocaine addicted dealers can use radio communication and counter surveillance what other tactics are in use?

The New York pharmacy shooting...yeah... he goes to shooting you do what you have to do and plan to win, but don't push a bad situation or gamble with other peoples lives prematurely.

As far as why ccw...to protect myself and those I love...and if need be, a victim thats in a life safety event...but not to fight crime-I'm not an LEO, superhero or vigilantee.

Finally if you truly believe an instructor is giving you bad info for CYA, then run don't walk away from his class, but even the most aggressive pros are gonna tell you to avoid pulling your weapon and avoid involving yourself in events unnecessairly.

Am I a coward? Yup sure am, always ment to get a yellow streak tattooed up my back...but its kept me alive a lot of years.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: Most firearms instructors probably will never tell someone to engage a bad guy in a room with civilians for liabilities sake.

Or maybe because it is usually a very foolish idea....

Aside from hollywood in the vast majority of armed robberies i've seen and read about there is no hidden accomplice. Either there are multiple robbers or there is only one.

If there are multiple robbers, what is it that makes you believe that you will be aware of them all before you draw your weapon? And just what is a "hidden accomplice"?

 

[GEM]

As far as firearms instructors, if you live near Austin - I suggest www.krtraining.com.

Then you can run through some of the robbery scenarios and see how well it goes. It's the closest we can come to the hypothetical and see if you have the magic touch to 'take them out'.

The issues of whether to act are also discussed by experts.

No one want to admit they will lose the fight or lose position in the dominance hierarchy by not acting in a dynamic fashion. That's a mistake to think that way but we see it all the time in this sort of discussion.

 

[Tomcat47]

Starting a gunfight in a crowd is as close to a worst case scenario as I want to imagine.

Ahhhh! Yep ...this is my take as well!

JustinJ....If you are not a Lawyer....You have missed your calling and should get in law school! You sure covered every analytical angle! but be a defense lawyer.............! we might need you!

One never knows how it would play out in one of these situations....

I for one keep my Wallet loaded with aprox $50 in cash and you know those pre approved credit card ads you get in the mail with a really cool looking credit card with John Smith! on them....yeah got a few of those in there and some really neat looking photos of my family I cut out of magazines and put in picture sleeves.....I would gladly hand over my wallet to would be thief and be nervously saying here take it! just dont hurt no one!

But only if it did not escalate into "him or me"....then I would pull!

All real cards etc are not in my wallet! and I guess I just realized I carry a wallet for a scenario I hope never happens! But my wallet has nothing to do with me or my family and only carries small amount of cash...hopefully just enough to get them away from me without hurting me or anyone else or getting worse than hurt themselves!

 

[Cryogaijin]

If the robber is just takin wallets and things like that, surrender your wallet. You shouldn't be carrying enough money to be a huge target/loss anyhow. (If you can't afford to lose it, don't carry it.) The cards are all insured, so no big loss there. Your wallet is NOT worth your life.

Now things change seriously if the robber is getting more enthusiastic in his search for "loot"

If there is a chance he will take your gun off you, everything changes.

Something else to consider, there are lots and lots of shiny surfaces in a starbucks. You can bet an adrenalized creep is going to be doing his best to watch everyone at once, so there is a reasonable chance he might notice you drawing.

Surrender your wallet and don't put people at risk. . . and be the best possible witness.

 

[JustinJ]

"What we have here is a mere hypothetical situation postulated by someone who wants to get some understanding of the responses members here might have to the situation posed in the OP. That's all. We're just talking about it - it's not really happening. Relax..."

I'm simply defending my position. Don't know why you think i'm worked up.

"If that makes me a coward or somehow inadequate as a man, or less than a hardcore defender of Truth Justice and The American Way, then frankly my dear I don't give a damn."

I've made no such accusations of cowardice. Relax. I understand your points but as i've said numerous times now i don't think letting a scum bag armed robber, who could be high on PCP, dictate my fate if a situation opens in which control of the situation can be regained with a high chance of success.

"If dude just says "Gimme all your money," no big deal. I'll deliver. But if dude says "empty your pockets" and goes nose to nose, counting pockets, watching his victims and making sure they comply then it's likely going to get interesting - because I pocket carry almost all the time. The one thing I will not do voluntarily is give up my gun in a situation like that."

That is actually a very good point i had not considered. I would suppose that there is a highly signficant chance that a crook will insist on having people empty their pockets. Personally, i feel there are certainly better times to act than when his attention is directected at a person who is carrying.

"Thing is, I can't SAY for sure what I would do because I don't KNOW what I would do unless I was confronted by the situation IRL - it would all depend on what dude did."
But I know for certain sure I'd happily give up the $150 or so I usually carry if I could avoid starting a gunfight in a public place by doing so."

I don't know why this point keeps getting made. My comments have nothing to do with retaining what is in one's pockets. Again, leaving one's fate in the hands of a scum bag armed robber if an opportunity to act presents iteslf is not the best choice, IMHO. Robbers have killed people many times in the past in spite of their compliance.

"Quote:
Aside from hollywood in the vast majority of armed robberies i've seen and read about there is no hidden accomplice. Either there are multiple robbers or there is only one.

If there are multiple robbers, what is it that makes you believe that you will be aware of them all before you draw your weapon? And just what is a "hidden accomplice"?"

Because in just about every video i've ever seen of a low level armed robbery the accomplices were not hidden. It seems unlikely that a hidden accomplice will hang out after the event so i don't think one can really say, "how do you know there wasn't a hidden accomplice in the vidoes".

 

[Flfiremedic]

Justin,
Shoot me a PM please.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: Again, leaving one's fate in the hands of a scum bag armed robber if an opportunity to act presents iteslf is not the best choice, IMHO.

It may be the best choice, and it may not. That will depend a lot upon what the robbers are doing; whether they are just taking money from the cashier, ordering everyone to empty their pockets, herding everyone into a back room, or shooting at the cashier will have a great influence on what would constitute a prudent course of action.

Robbers have killed people many times in the past in spite of their compliance.

And, of course, they have not killed many times--say, eight times out of ten, and probably higher in the kind of scenario under discussion here.

A twenty percent chance of someone getting shot is pretty high, of course. So, is there anything that an armed citizen could reasonably do to reverse the odds? Probably not, I'm afraid. All of the following would have to happen at the same time same:

1. The actor would have to not draw attention to an accomplice, if there is one, and draw his fire;
2. He would have to not be mistaken for one of the robbers by an armed citizen with a reckless bent or by an arriving officer;
3. He would have to hit the robber, who may well move at the last minute, with such effectiveness that he would instantly not only be unable to shoot, but would not shoot reflexively;
4. He would have to not draw the robber's attention, either directly or through the involuntary reactions of others, and end up being shot first.

Oh yeah, you do have to take into account number 5: not hitting an innocent person.

One could assign probabilities to each and multiply them; I would not rely upon point estimates, but upon a range for each, and model the results using something like a Monte Carlo simulation. And one will find that the answer does not look very good at all.


Since the chance of successfully accomplishing number 3 with a handgun is surely way under 80%, putting one's firarm into play would not be good strategy even if the if the probabilities assigned to each of all of the other four were unity--unless of course something happened to indicate that the incident involved much more than an armed robbery.

As Flfiremedic points out, the situation would for call for a sniper shot made by an expert with a weapon capable of immediate stops. The spotter would most likely not even consider ordering the shot unless and until there were clear indications that the situation was about to turn bloody.

Because in just about every video i've ever seen of a low level armed robbery the accomplices were not hidden.

Hidden from whom? Do you really want to engage two desperate men with guns in their hands, one of whom will be covering the crowd, after drawing from concealment?

It seems unlikely that a hidden accomplice will hang out after the event so i don't think one can really say, "how do you know there wasn't a hidden accomplice in the vidoes".

That doesn't make any sense.

The idea that most people who suggest armed interventions in the numerous threads we have had on this subject is that they can and should improve the situation by drawing an opening fire. As Flfiremedic points out, however, one is putting the lives of others at risk in doing so. We have had posts in these from persons who have been robbed by armed persons where they work, and most of them do not want citizens opening fire on the robber. Shooters are rarely as good as they think they are, and in real life handguns are nowhere near as effective as they are in the movies.

If one really wants to try his hand at it, he should heed GEM's suggestion in Post #29. That way he could learn something without putting the lives of others at extreme risk.

 

[GEM]

BTW, I've in such FOF:

1. Righteously took out the BG by being stunningly aggressive and then getting into a gun fight with his hidden backup.

2. As the BG, just shot someone who thought they could sneak out their gun.

3. Been killed by a team of two who easily handled my resistance.

4. Been shot by the good guy who started the gun fight and missed.

5. Been shot by the BG when I tried to be passive.

6. Wiped out three Good guys running to the rescue when I was bad.

There's no one answer.

 

[JustinJ]

"It may be the best choice, and it may not. That will depend a lot upon what the robbers are doing; whether they are just taking money from the cashier, ordering everyone to empty their pockets, herding everyone into a back room, or shooting at the cashier will have a great influence on what would constitute a prudent course of action."

That is exactly the point i've been trying to make except that the situation in reference has been a single armed robber. There are many factors to consider, even the caliber of the concealed carrier, but I think an opportunity should be looked for to regain control of the situation. An opportunity may never present itself or it may become abundantly in one's favor to act. What if the bg puts his gun down on the counter and your five yards away? Still don't act? This has actually happened in a convenience store in which the clerk grabbed the weapon and chased the bg out of the store.


"Quote:
Robbers have killed people many times in the past in spite of their compliance.

And, of course, they have not killed many times--say, eight times out of ten, and probably higher in the kind of scenario under discussion here."

I've acknowledged and addressed that. I just don't believe leaving one's fate in the hands of a bad guy is the best choice if an opening presents itself with a reasonably high chance of success. Success of course includes not having innocents killed.

"1. The actor would have to not draw attention to an accomplice, if there is one, and draw his fire"

Multiple robbers is a whole other situation. However, the chances of a hidden accomplice planted in advance of the event is highly unlikely in a small time Starbucks robbery. In any case a little profiling could go a long way here.

"2. He would have to not be mistaken for one of the robbers by an armed citizen with a reckless bent or by an arriving officer"

In the middle of a crowded shopping mall this is a major concern but if a guy busts into a starbucks i can't see anybody being mistaken as to who the robber is. Given how quickly it would likely go down if one acted there is a very small window for LE to arrive and shoot the wrong person.

"3 He would have to hit the robber, who may well move at the last minute, with such effectiveness that he would instantly not only be unable to shoot, but would not shoot reflexively"

This is the biggest risk i believe. Distance, caliber, types of guns, how the bg is handling his weapon and where it is pointed, must all be considered. Obviously a shot should not be taken while the bg's guy is aimed in the direction of an innocent.

"4 He would have to not draw the robber's attention, either directly or through the involuntary reactions of others, and end up being shot first."

Where one is oriented in relation to the robber and other people would be a big factor here but given the normal layout of a starbucks it would be almost impossible for a robber to watch the patrons and deal with the cashier simulatenously. How the concealed weapon is carried is also a factor here.

"Oh yeah, you do have to take into account number 5: not hitting an innocent person."

Of course. Five yards with a clear line of sight compared to 25 with people between must obviously be weighed differently.


"Since the chance of successfully accomplishing number 3 with a handgun is surely way under 80%, putting one's firarm into play would not be good strategy even if the if the probabilities assigned to each of all of the other four were unity--unless of course something happened to indicate that the incident involved much more than an armed robbery."

Where does 80% come from? Many of the statistics about handgun shootings fail to exclude those involving .22 caliber.

"As Flfiremedic points out, the situation would for call for a sniper shot made by an expert with a weapon capable of immediate stops. The spotter would most likely not even consider ordering the shot unless and until there were clear indications that the situation was about to turn bloody."

The scenario i'm talking about is being inside of a starbucks when an armed robber enters to rob the place. But speaking of LE sniper shots I saw a video on one of those real life criminal shows in which LE did arrive during the robbery resulting in a hostage situation. A shot was taken at an armed assailant through glass which missed causing him to begin executing people at point blank range. This is exactly the kind of scenario to be avoided.


"Quote:
Because in just about every video i've ever seen of a low level armed robbery the accomplices were not hidden.

Hidden from whom? Do you really want to engage two desperate men with guns in their hands, one of whom will be covering the crowd, after drawing from concealment?"

My point is against those who say the robber could have an accomplice hidden amongst the other patrons, not for engaging multiple robbers.


"Quote:
It seems unlikely that a hidden accomplice will hang out after the event so i don't think one can really say, "how do you know there wasn't a hidden accomplice in the vidoes".

That doesn't make any sense."

Of all the robbery videos i have ever seen i can't recall one where an accomplice was hidden amongst other patrons. That is the point i am making.

What if the robber decides to go for the belongings of all patrons? In that case your firearm is highly likely to be discovered at a point when the bad guy already has his weapon fixed on you. Do you resign to let him take your weapon or do you act once he begins searching others, assuming you're not first?

 

[Flfiremedic]

What you seem to be advocating or trying to get others to approve of is called a conditional green light, and that is a rare and difficult call that comes from senior tactical commander on a scene...I still say if there is no immediate and articulable threat its a no shoot scenerio...and if your target puts his weapon down on a counter are you really going to choose to draw and fire or did I read that wrong?
Its been noted by several that an actor searching victims and the risk of having your weapon found and taken can and probably will change the purdent course of action, and I certainly agree with that.
Finally and with respect how many robbery videos have you scene and where did you access them?

 

[Kleanbore]

JustinJ, I do not know your training level or experience, but it strikes me based on what you have said that (1) you have a preconceived notion that either an armed robber will probably act alone, or if he does not, you will somehow be able to divine who, among the others who enter the establishment, may happen to be his accomplice, apparently based in part upon videos you have seen; (2) you think that, based on your assessment of your ability to act under stress and the capability of your weapon, the likelihood that you would instantly disable him with a handgun far exceeds the likelihood that the robbery would end without bloodshed without your intervention; and (3) you are only concerned about risk to those third parties whom you can see.

Continuing to debate what one has seen in videos will not prove fruitful. However, there are three things that you will undoubtedly find helpful:

1. Read as many accounts of real handgun encounters that you can find, and pay particular attention to how many times a person is hit and how many times he is able to fire back afterwards (Massad Ayoob's work would be a good place to start);
2. attend a really good high performance handdgun course, see how rapidly you can draw and fire, and see how many hits you can put in a fraction of a second on a moving target or a simulation of same, and where they hit; and
3. follow GEM's advice and participate in some focussed FoF training relevant to the hypothetical scenario discussed here.

I have noted that those who have done these things (and that includes a number of experienced law enforcement officers) invariably have a different perspective in these discussions from those who have not.

Full disclosure: I have done the first two, but not the third. The first two were probably sufficient for me to make up my mind, but posts from those who have engaged in FoF training have been quite persuasive, also.

I hope you find this helpful.

 

[JustinJ]

"What you seem to be advocating or trying to get others to approve of is called a conditional green light, and that is a rare and difficult call that comes from senior tactical commander on a scene."

I would actually say that if i am one of the patrons being held at gun point the relevenace to a tactical commander's decision is lacking.

"Finally and with respect how many robbery videos have you scene and where did you access them?"

News, internet, TV shows dedicated to the topic with real clips (of which there are many), and have read about in gun mags and books.

"Its been noted by several that an actor searching victims and the risk of having your weapon found and taken can and probably will change the purdent course of action, and I certainly agree with that."

Maybe i overlooked some replies but i saw that discussed by one other and was asking those who argued completely againt action but hadn't addressed that point.

Flfirmedic, if you would like to discuss something privately feel free to msg me.

 

[JustinJ]

"So last night I was thinking about cc'ing in public. I remembered hearing a story from when I was going to grad school for my MBA (2 years ago or so) that someone told me. He said he was at Starbucks, and someone came in with a gun and robbed the place. He robbed everyone there too - all at gunpoint."

The above situation as described in the OP is the one my comments have been primarily about.

From what i have seen when a robbery involves multiple assailants they enter together in force and there is no ambiguity about who are the bad guys. But this is a very different situation from what i've been talking about(single robber) and one in which a viable opportunity to act is highly unlikely.

My reference of videos seen is only meant as evidence against the likelihood of a hidden accomplice existing to flank a person who engages the robber. If someone can find more than a handful, if any, instances of hidden accomplices in small time robberies i would be interested to read about them.

"Read as many accounts of real handgun encounters that you can find, and pay particular attention to how many times a person is hit and how many times he is able to fire back afterwards (Massad Ayoob's work would be a good place to start);"

I have and continue to. I've also read and watched videos about tactics, procedures and training methods. While i regularly practice, including drawing and firing, i am yet to attend a course although it's in the plans. My perspective could possibly change after but from the one i have now i just don't see ruling out all action as the best choice.

"(2) you think that, based on your assessment of your ability to act under stress and the capability of your weapon, the likelihood that you would instantly disable him with a handgun far exceeds the likelihood that the robbery would end without bloodshed without your intervention"

While i've never fired under stress i'll say that i am fully aware of how like situations affect a person but that' as far as i'll go there. If one does engage the robber a single shot is not going to be the wisest choice. And yes, i am fully aware of the difficulty in firing accurate follow up shots. I am also aware of my abilities and limitations to a degree; although nobody really knows until done in a real scenario.

"I hope you find this helpful."

I absolutely do and greatly enjoy debate and discussion with knowledgeable people. Engaging people with different opinions, knowledge and perspective is the best way to learn.

 

[Flfiremedic]

Deleted

 

[JVaughn]

I would have to be almost certian that he was going to kill someone before I would take my weapon out.

In fact, I would have to be so certian that it wouldn't matter whether or not I was armed, that I would try to tackle him unarmed because I felt it was my last option before someone was going to die.

It's pretty unlikely that a true robber is going to shoot someone in a hold up - they know there is a major difference in armed robbery and murder.

 

[Sky]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/18/top-five-most-brazen-flash-mob-robberies/

The same technologies that for years have brought together the mostly benign and goofy "flash mobs," in which groups suddenly break into dance at a mall or stumble around like zombies at train stations, is being used to plan and execute bold robberies.

 

[Nushif]

The biggest thing I got from that "news" source is this line:

Because of these flash plots, police have begun to more closely monitor social media sites, reports the Chicago Sun Times.

That's the kind of stuff that really peeves me, to be honest. Because of what people *might* use a communications technology for people feel the need to "monitor" it?

 

[Fred Fuller]

A flash mob that assembles with the intent of removing merchandise from a store is one thing. A flash mob that deliberately and intentionally attacks and physically assaults passersby, assembled in large groups of assailants who apparently intend to do significant physical harm, is another thing entirely. So far I don't recall seeing any of the latter type of attacks being reported from places where concealed carry is legal. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

As an armed private citizen, using your concealed carry sidearm to try and protect convenience store, clothing shop etc. merchandise in a flash mob ripoff situation is probably something you will want to avoid doing.

In a situation where you and/or your family or companions are physically assaulted without any provocation on your part, by multiple individuals, flash mob or not, and the assault is serious enough that you are placed in legitimate fear of serious injury or death... it would seem to me that your options are limited at that point.

lpl

 

[Owen Sparks]

I would not shoot anyone to protect the beer cooler at the local convenience store but if an unruley mob were looting the place I would probably draw my pistol (pointed down in a safe direction) and head for the door. The first one that made a threatening jesture towards me or my wife would earn a quick double tap. I live in a Southern state with no duty to retreat. We don't have this sort of problem here.

 

[Flfiremedic]

If I'm reading this right, you are saying if you were stuck in a store being looted by a mob you would draw in preparation to leave the store and be prepared to defend yourself and family? I've always been taught that pulling a weapon escalates things with a mob, BUT if they are between me and the exit, in the confined space of a store, I'm going to do the same as you and be VERY prepared for and expect an escalation of hostilities.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Owen Sparks: I would not shoot anyone to protect the beer cooler at the local convenience store but if an unruley mob were looting the place I would probably draw my pistol (pointed down in a safe direction) and head for the door.

That would be difficult to justify in most states (Minnesota and Texas may be exceptions), and, of course, it could in the heat of the moment result in your being shot by the proprietor--by mistake, of course, but perhaps lawfully.

The first one that made a threatening jesture towards me or my wife would earn a quick double tap.

That would most likely earn you some hard time.

A threatening gesture? In the "AOJ, P" formula, you might be able to argue that you had reason to believe that they possessed the ability to cause great bodily harm, but it is most unlikely that, in the situation you describe, your saying that one of them had made a "threatening gesture" toward you indicated that you were in in fact in jeopardy, or that you had had no other alternative than deadly force to defend yourself against an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

I believe that need to learn more about what constitutes lawful self defense. Here's something that many of us have found helpful.

Also consider this: should one ever end up having to use deadly force in self defense, and should the evidence and testimony collected afterward not be entirely supportive of your claim that he or she had had no alternative, a statement to the effect that someone who had "made a threatening gesture ... would earn a quick double tap" could prove extremely damaging to one's case. Anything put into email or letter or anywhere on the Internet that could be used to establish state of mind may come up at trial, and no one wants to have created evidence that could give indications of a predisposition to use deadly force unlawfully.

 

[Uteridge]

A flash mob that assembles with the intent of removing merchandise from a store is one thing. A flash mob that deliberately and intentionally attacks and physically assaults passersby, assembled in large groups of assailants who apparently intend to do significant physical harm, is another thing entirely. So far I don't recall seeing any of the latter type of attacks being reported from places where concealed carry is legal. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

There have been some violent flash mobs in downtown Kansas City. So far I haven't heard of any serious injuries but they have been showing up and harassing customers in the plaza verbally and physically. As with any mob situation, it doesn't take much to cross that line though.

On the original topic: In a robbery in a public place I am not getting involved if there are no shots fired. If those robbers decide to move people to a move private place (store room, kitchen, etc) then you have to assume the worst and make your play. That happened in a local gas station where I grew up in rural Missouri. A guy robbed a gas station at gunpoint and then led the two clerks and one customer to the back storeroom where he bashed all their heads in with a claw hammer. I'm staying cool as long as everything is in public view but nothing good happens in back rooms or alleys.

 

[JustinJ]

Back to the OP, what are thoughts on the legalities of acting? My understanding would be that if the robber is brandishing a weapon one would be fully justified in using lethal force, regardless of wether or not one believes it the best tactical decision. Injury to innocents of course could result in civil suits.